Exemption for installing parts with no certs??? NCR-034-2022

[chowda]

I think I can still comprehend what I read, but Im wondering if Im starting to go senile....

"NCR-034-2022
Re-issuance of NCR-021-2017

The purpose of this exemption is to allow persons to sign a maintenance release following the installation of parts which do not have, as applicable to the part in question, one or more of the following:

a) the manufacturer’s certification required by subsection 571.07(1) of the CARs;
b) traceability to a certified manufacturer as required by paragraph 571.13(2)(a) of the CARs;
c) the maintenance releases required by paragraphs 571.08(1)(b) or 571.08(1)(c) or 571.13(1)(a) of the CARS; or
d) evidence of the use of approved data as required by paragraph 571.13(2)(b) of the CARs."


https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/refere ... tions-cars

[photofly]

This is very poorly drafted.

According to the exemption:

1. No part shall be installed other than:
a) one which is specified in the type design of the aircraft or aeronautical product on which it is to be installed, or

Now have a look at Exploits Valley Air Services Ltd. vs. Canada (MInister of Transport) for the correct meaning of type design
https://decisions.tatc.gc.ca/tatc/tatc/ ... 5/index.do

The TATC appeal tribunal held that:

We therefore note that when the Minister’s witness testified that the maintenance manual and the illustrated parts catalogue are part of the type design, he was incorrect as a matter of law. Rather, in accordance with the CARs definition, only the limitations section of the maintenance manual is part of the type design, and parts catalogues are not part of the type design.

[/quote]
My emphasis. This was the judgement of the appeal panel of three, and sets a precedent, unless TC wishes to appeal to the Federal court. As far as I know, they have not done so.

So on a statutory basis it's not clear how to meet this requirement of the exemption.

[Pat Richard]

Well this an interesting thread.

Initially Im wondering HTF that exemption can possibly be part of the aviation maintenance doctrine in canada. Its about as vague a statement as one could hope to encounter in TC's world of grey area heiroglyphics. The practical side of me is thinking there HAS to be more to that than posted in the link. Some special category or c of a or a new flying unicorn category I never heard of.

Photoflys reply - damn, another understanding I carried as gospel mostly shattered, lol. I would never have thought to begin to question the authority of a IPC, I just always made sure of latest revision dates and effectivities.
The fact that anybody/company would see it worth its while to debate that point in court speaks to me of another canadian company trying to find a way to cut costs within a system/agreement they initially voluntarily signed into.

I've heard more than a few things about EVAS and I guess I should not surprised they went this route, and it does speak to the underlying mentalites at play in canadian aviation, esepecially now.

Honestly, it's to the point of eff the aca and Im doing my hours and going home. Screw your phones calls and hot standby issues.

[Bug_Stomper_01]

The exemption applies to persons authorized to sign a maintenance release following the installation of a new or used part, for which the accompanying documentation does not include certification or release pursuant to or in accordance with the applicable requirements set out in the CARs, on a Canadian registered aircraft for which a Special Certificate of Airworthiness - Limited has been issued or which is eligible for the issuance of a Special Certificate of Airworthiness – Limited.
NCR-034-2022


So ya it makes sense for the aircraft operating in a special C of A - Limited